H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Kveta Peschke H2H: 1-0
Shahar Peer holds a 1–0 lead over Kveta Peschke in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2005 Roland Garros second round 6-1 1-6 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 51
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2005* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-1 1-6 6-4 | Kveta Peschke | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Kveta Peschke | #264 | #26 | 1,028 | 1,826 | 92 | 115 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Shahar Peer | Kveta Peschke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #237 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #222 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #60 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #44 | 1,699 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #47 | 1,809 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #85 | 1,716 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #148 | 1,676 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #93 | 1,676 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #30 | 1,770 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 7–20 | 25.9% | #133 | 1,593 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #264 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 |